US President Donald Trump’s January 27th, 2017 executive “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” banned entry into the United States to anyone who had citizenship in one of 7 Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

Whereas Trump took the 9/11 attacks to justify the executive order, Persian Gulf Arab countries believed to have taken an active role in September 11th attacks were excluded from the order. The eyebrows were raised when Saudi Arabia and the UAE were not included by Trump, while out of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks, 15 held Saudi Arabian nationality and 2 more were from the UAE. These countries, now proven, to nurture extremism and instability in south west Asia are thought to be Trump’s strong business interests to be left unmentioned in the executive order.

Barring the citizens of majority-Muslim countries from the US caused nationwide protests taking place all across the country and prompted further outcry worldwide. Yet, a Federal judge move to block the executive order came to soothe the wounds. Despite the improper rhetoric applied by the head of the US Administration to label and discourage the federal judge, his colleagues in a federal appeals court encouraged blocking the executive order calling it in breach of the US constitution.

Many lawyers and legal experts believe that the there are certain legal shortcomings in the executive orders issued by the US Administration. It is believed on one hand, they are violating refugees’ international treaties to which the US is a signatory, and on the other hand, they contradict the US constitution where it is concerned with racism and freedom of religion. Likewise, Edward Corrigan believes the executive orders are unlawful, contradicting domestic and international laws.

In an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency, Edward C. Corrigan, an Ontario-based lawyer and Specialist in Citizenship, Immigration Law and Refugee Protection, discussed different aspects of Trump’s Muslim Ban executive order. He analyzed the US Administration and Judiciary’s moves, to act against each other in the case of the Muslim Ban.

Below is the full text of the interview.

Q: The attacks on September 11, 2001 were cited as the justification of the executive order; however, as one US Federal Court Judge pointed out in overturning the order, there was not a single act of terrorism committed in the United States since 9/11 by any individuals from the 7 banned countries. How do you view this matter that 9/11 has been brought up as the excuse for the Muslim Ban order, while people from countries never connected with the 9/11 are barred from the US?

A: Trump who loudly and frequently proclaimed that he would “ban Muslims” from entering the United States throughout his Presidential campaign wrapped his executive order in the American flag and invoked the memory of the 9/11 attacks to justify his action. This promise to “ban Muslims” resonated with the Conservative American Heartland securing Trump a majority in the American Electoral College. Hence, the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by a large margin but lost the all important Electoral College to Trump.

According to the FBI, the hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates, two from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. It has been suggested that these Muslim countries were not on the list because of Trump’s business ties to those countries.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the Washington State Federal Court Judge who ruled the executive order on the 7 countries unconstitutional and imposed a prohibition on the enforcement of the order in the entire United States. (No. 17-35105 D.C. no. 2:17-cv-00141) The Attorney Generals of the States of Washington and Minnesota led the challenge against Trump’s executive order.

There was mixed enforcement of the Federal Court’s initial order and some Homeland Security Officials continue to detain legally authorized individuals from the 7 countries and other individuals who made refugee claims. However, after the US Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision to overturn the order, the Rule of Law was generally enforced.

It was the unanimous view of the Judges that the executive order was discriminatory and overly broad and lacked the necessary factual basis to support such a wide spread attack on refugees and individuals who have been issued valid visas to enter the United States. Even individuals who had “Green Cards” and were legal Permanent Residents in the United States but were citizens of the 7 proscribed countries were arrested and detained at airports and denied entry. There was chaos at the airports and people were terrified that they were being arbitrarily separated from their love ones. There were widespread demonstrations against Trump’s executive order.

Q: Who do you think has been affected the most by the order, those who did their hardest to economically integrate with a leading world economy; university students who made great efforts to keep up with the United States' scientific and technological achievements, or parents banned from visiting their loved ones?

A: Pictures of a 5 year-old child who was a citizen of one of the proscribed countries being placed in hand cuffs did not present President Trump in a favorable light. Students and Professors who were returning to the United States after a visit home were being barred from entry and stopped from pursuing their studies or teaching assignments. There were security cleared and vetted Iraqi refugees who had worked as translators for the US Military were being denied entry and threatened with being returned to Iraq where their work for the US military put their lives at risk.

There were many other absurdities like barring Israeli Citizens who also were citizens one of the 7 banned countries. Also banning Christians from those countries who on the face of the order could not enter the U.S.

Canadians who were Citizens or Permanent Residents of Canada but also citizens of one of the 7 Countries were also barred entry into the United States. Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a Canadian but also a Citizen of Somalia and even he cannot enter the United States under the terms of the executive order.

Many Canadian schools cancelled their school trips to the United States because many students were Muslim and from the 7 banned countries and the schools would not risk that some of their students would be denied entry. Trumps’ ban and apparent anti-Muslim policies also caused many travelers to cancel their planned trips to the United States.

Q: When the executive order was blocked by a Federal Court, President Trump took the case to the Appeals Court where the judges reaffirmed the Federal Court’s decision to block the order. President Trump insists to take the case to the Supreme Court. Doesn’t President Trump ever have the sense that the order is against the constitution?

A: When the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling to declare the executive order unconstitutional Trump vowed to take the case to the United States Supreme Court. In all no less than 5 United States Federal Court Judges ruled the order unconstitutional. Due to the rushed and poorly thought out nature of the order and the lack of notice and lack of due process it was fairly obvious that the previous decisions overturning Trump’s executive order would not be reversed.

It appears that Donald Trump who has never had any previous experience in government saw himself as an executive of a Company and not a country that has three different levels of government and clear division of powers. Trump no doubt learned a valuable lesson about the Rule of Law and that there are legal limits on what he can do.

Q: As the current order is still in court, President Trump has introduced a recent set of executive orders concerning those he calls “migrants”. How do you view the future of the people concerned, who are less-paid, but over-charged? How do you view the future of the US’s economy in light of Trump’s executive orders on immigration?

A: Trump is intent to continue his anti-migrant and anti-refugee policies. On February 20, 2017 a draft Memorandum on the “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” was prepared. However, this time the focus was directed to the many illegal Latinos living in the United States.

There are more than 950,000 illegal migrants with “legal removal orders” who have disappeared in the American population.

There may be as many as 10 million illegals living and working in the United States. Trump and his administration have promised to arrest and deport as many illegals as possible. This included groups with children born in the United States or who have lived in America for many years that were treated more leniently by the previous Obama Administration.

Trump has announced that he plans to deport large numbers of illegal migrants including those who are suspected of having committed even minor criminal offenses. He also wants to use existing laws to expedite refugee claimants and give US Immigration Officers wide discretionary powers to reject refugee claimants and expedite removal.

Trump hopes to remove many of these claimants to Mexico even before they have a hearing on their asylum claims. Not sure how he is going to get Mexico to agree to this plan. Trump also plans to go ahead with his 21 billion dollar Wall to try to keep out Mexicans and other Latino’s from Central America from illegally entering the United States.

With all of the scare mongering and hype over deporting undocumented migrants many illegals stopped going to the fields to harvest the crops due to a fear of being arrested and deported. The crops are now rotting in the fields since most Americans will not do this type of work for a pittance.

Trump and the American people are about to discover how much they depend on cheap migrant labor. It is going to be very interesting times in the United States until they sort out their labor and immigration problems and learn to live with Donald Trump.